Update on Luchesi, Joseph Haydn and Mozart

[Agnes Selby]

Originally posted by robert newman:

Dear Agnes Selby,

This is bizzare. I am continually asking you in my correspodence to provide examples of what you say. On this forum in the past few days I have proved beyond reasonable doubt that it's you who are refusing to answer specific questions.

I have now asked you openly to provide this forum with examples of me not providing evidence to support my posts. You now say there are too many for your to give even one example.

Let others decide who is being responsible and who is trying to support their views with evidence. I again ask you to provide evidence in support of your allegations. Just give us an example please. One will be enough. And if it's true I will immediately support it with as many sources as possible.

Robert Newman

-------------

Please supply evidence that Mozart did not compose his works. Please supply evidence that Luchesi was the author of Mozart's works, that Mozart copied Luchesi's works and presented them as his own.

You are suggesting the greatest fraud in musical history. You have been writing about this theft by Mozart for many years now. I am asking you to finally produce evidence before your carry on any further with your crusade.

Agnes Selby.

[robert newman]

Dear Steve,

You begin with the remarkable statement that you know of 'MANY' Mozart misattributions.

Well, hallelujah ! You have at least given me ONE answer. You agree that many compositions which have been credited to Mozart are NOT, actually, compositions of Mozart. Great.

But you now have the amazing idea that I am NOT speaking of misattributions !!!! You say that none of the works found in his thematic catalogue are involved.

How utterly foolish can a person be ? The thematic catalogue of which you speak (the one now at the British Library and begun in 1784) was only started that year (i.e. when Mozart was 28 years old). It contains at most 1/3rd of the total works that are contained within Koechel and perhaps 1/4 of those if we add together those from various appendixes of Koechel. So, even according to your own understanding, the majority of works today attributed to Mozart are not actually found in his own handwritten catalogue. Yes ?

Any reader of this thread who learned of a composer who has at one time or another been credited with writing virtually a hundred symphonies but who, today, is credited with having written less than fifty would surely agree we are speaking here of a credibility problem.

Can you provide us with a parallel situation in music history (other than what we find in the case of Joseph Haydn) ? This is ridiculous. And yet you're telling me that I'm the person who is misleading people !!

The Mozart family, helped by various other composers and by vested interests virtually from the time when Mozart first played in public, created an image of him and his works which has been systematically torn to pieces by the facts of history. It has been an exodus from the myth and its been happening since Kochel first arrived on the scene. Look, if you will, at the actual record. Look at the 7 (at least) versions of Koechel that have appeared since the mid-19th century. Tell me, if you can, how many works given in these Koechel lists have had to be removed in all the time Koechel has been the 'official' record of Mozart's works. Have you the remotest idea of how many works this actually IS ?

'Mozart' and 'Haydn' were brand names that were carefully cultivated in their own lifetimes. The evidence is entirely supportive of this fact. The current Koechel contains many, many works that even its current editors agree are of doubtful Mozartean origin. But if you don't believe this why not check and see which 'Mozart' works have recently been dropped from the Koechel list ? Your universe is manifestly collapsing under the weight of its own falsehoods.

Tell me, if you can, how many Mozart works have been ADDED to Koechel since the beginning of the 20th century ?

Tell me, if you can, why works not credited to Mozart during the years claimed when he wrote them are now 'Mozart' works ?

We are dealing here with mythology in which no number of facts will persuade you that Mozart never lied or deceived anyone. No evidence will shake your view and it becomes clear that you are not really interested in giving any.

In those cases where I have argued that Mozart did not compose works I have provided an argument for saying so.

Judge for yourself whether you believe that Mozart is a forger and a liar. Do the same for Haydn if you wish. But do these things having actually examined the weight of evidence now stacked against them. You will then have judged this matter fairly.

I have at least asked you to expand your reading on these issues. Frankly, you have little idea of the scale of the deception.

You ask me to look carefully at the name SR and compare it closely with that of the founders of the Mozartforum. Well, I have done so. All the more reason for the Mozartforum to show its expertise, to become far more open to criticism of convention, and to recognise that the Mozart bandwaggon (often absurd as you know yourself) is filled with contradictions which just keep increasing.

You say that I am separating myself from the Mozartforum. This is false. In fact, the Mozartforum decided to ban me for 'diminishing the legacy of Mozart' when, in fact, I was merely trying to establish what that legacy actually IS. It was the Mozartforum who refused to answer my appeal against their decision. It was the Mozartforum who claimed I was not supporting my views with evidence. I again say this is false.

Mozart is not a person we can easily study without bringing on board a certain amount of baggage - assumptions. We have been granting him the benefit of our doubt in thousands of cases. We have been prepared to give him that benefit in cases where we would not have done so for other composers or historical figures. We find ourselves prepared to overlook his lies. We must do so, since that is the convention to which we are now accustomed. We are even prepared to overlook his defamation of other musicians. The 'Mozartean' interpretation of things is an insult to your own intelligence if only we can realise it. What we have, in fact, is a version that has been carefully manufactured by vested interests. And I represent (as do others) a dedicated counter argument which deserves your respect. That music deserves the input of people like you and people like me.

It is not for me to be reconciled with the Mozartforum. I've tried often enough. It is for the Mozartforum to be reconciled with the inherent contradictions that we find in the standard biographies and work lists of that composer.

If a day should arrive in which you see the validity of such an argument (in which you realise these things do have some weight) - then, at that time, you will see who has been reasonable - and so will I.

Until then, I would never dream of banning you and (unlike yourself) encourage you to discuss, criticise and learn along with myself here or anywhere else.

You speak of fame. Frankly, Mozartforum is famous, is it not ? And if I do not support my views with evidence there is nothing worthy of your attention.

Ask yourself how many more works by 'Mozart' must be dropped from Koechel before it is appreciated that we are dealing with a major problem (?) Only at that point will you really appreciate that my views or yours are not as important as truth itself - this established by all of us when we have respect for each other.

Robert Newman

[SR]

Mr Newman

As per usual you prove your inability to read
but instead try to confuse the issue.

The issue is this....

In the past you have claimed that works entered by Mozart in his personal catalogue of his works were in fact not written by Mozart. The Jupiter for example. This would be an example of fraud by Mozart, not a misatribution. A misatribution is when Mozart arranged Handels Messiah and for a time it was attributed to Mozart. Mozart never claimed authorship of said work. Please select a piece from said Mozart catalogue and prove Mozart stole/bought said work from Luchesi rather than composing it.

Until I see such proof there is as usual with you, no point in further communication.

Regards

Steve

[robert newman]

Dear SR,

You want to be highly selective about the evidence in your defence of tradition. You ask for evidence from Mozart's own thematic catalogue. No - I am asking you to consider the WHOLE of those works which today are attributed to Mozart - i.e. both those supposedly written by him before he started the thematic catalogue in Vienna AND those supposedly written by him after that date (1784). Who is being more fair ? Who is looking at ALL the evidence ? What more can you ask ? But you (answering nothing) say the evidence is entirely on your side !

Frankly, you are being disingenuous. You choose highly selective evidence and cannot see the wood for the trees. You know perfectly well your system would collapse if we were to list here the falsely attributed works that were credited to him prior to 1784. So you don't want to acknowledge you have a problem. This is the truth.

I asked if you could give me examples of works wrongly attributed to another composer before it was realised they were really by Mozart. The best you can provide is an arrangement of Handel's 'Messiah' - a work so universally known to be Handel's that your answer is laughable. What work in the whole history of music was better known in Europe during Mozart's lifetime as being by Handel than Handel's 'Messiah' ? The Mozart correspondence lists many people who were perfectly well aware Handel was its composer and not one believed it was by Mozart.

But no, you say I am being malicious in saying Mozart told lies. You assume his thematic catalogue is a true account of what he wrote. Is it ? You would be well advised to realise that long before 1784 his career was being 'stage-managed' - with manuscripts being falsely credited to him. That is the true context within which we must judge this case. There is already a track record prior to 1784 which you clearly do not wish us to know about.

Certainly, in 1784 Mozart's music suddenly shows a qualitative leap. (I believe a network was in place by that time by which he would be supplied by works). In many cases he orchestrated/arranged these before claiming them as his own. (He had done so often enough before 1784). If you give him credit for writing 3 symphonies in 6 weeks (this without any commission to do so) fine. They remained unpublished in his lifetime. But the net results of such practices were added to his thematic catalogue all the same.

He and Haydn were largely manufactured as the 'glories of Austrian music'. Their status became so great that they are, till this day, icons.

I appreciate you have no choice but to say 'there is no evidence'. You must appreciate that, in fact, a considerable amount of evidence exists in the form of manuscripts and many other sorts - e.g. those of 'Mozart' at Estense Library in Modena.

Until Mozart's supposed compositions as a whole are considered it seems we cannot have much to discuss. But in the next few years others (not only myself) will give you some things to think about. Of that you can be quite sure. Whether you welcome such criticism or not remains to be seen. But if you have with such a forest of publications the facts on your side, let us see whether these facts prove to be as reliable as you suppose.

Well, at least we exchanged these emails.

Robert Newman

[robert newman]

Dear Agnes Selby,

It will no longer be me who arrives at a verdict on these things. It will readers of this thread. They will judge who is willing to provide evidence and who is not.

Having studied Mozart and his music for at least 20 years (and this as someone who truly loves it, whether it was actually composed by him or not) makes me at least a sensitive critic of convention.

I only regret that you cannot concede that these issues should be fairly examined from both sides and that you could not answer here the various questions asked of you on this thread. But that too is something which will now be on record.

Yours sincerely

Robert (Newman)

[Frank H]

Dear Robert,

I owe you many thanks for bringing my attention to the remarkable and worthy Hector Berlioz. This led me to his memoirs, reading which has caused a radical change in my views on him, as I recount elsewhere on this forum.

However, on this other issue, that of the authorship of the works usually (and, as far as I can see, generally correctly) attributed to Johannes Chrysostomos Wolfgangus Theophilus Mozart, not only have you not convinced me, but every consideration makes me more sure that you are hunting a mirage.

In a previous post I asked for the core, essential, evidence you have for your claim that these works are actually by Luchesi. In your replies, you significantly failed to do so, while waxing at length about all the wrongdoings of the Jesuits.

As I pointed out, in all the very few (but very important) cases where formerly heretical theories have proved to be “right”, and thus become the new orthodoxy, it has ultimately hinged on a very few pieces of evidence, indeed often on a single issue. The fact is that heretical theorists and conspiracy theorists are always very good at building up a large volume of “evidence”, which, when looked at closely is only in effect saying the same thing over and over again, and which, however “impressive” it might look in bulk, would all collapse unless (one or) a few pieces of evidence stood up.

It is usually only too easy to pick holes in the “orthodox” theory. This is because total consistency is rarely a feature of the human world, except on a small scale, is often not a feature of the biological world, and is even sometimes apparently lacking in the physical world. Thus if anyone is determined to believe, or not to believe, in a particular theory, they will always be able to find “evidence” to support their belief – yes, even that the earth is flat. Such a procedure is scientifically invalid in itself, unless it honestly takes into account contrary evidence.

[Having served recently on a jury, I had experience of this on an everyday level. In one case, there was overwhelming evidence that the defendant was guilty. Yet one of my fellow-jurors was quite determined to find him not guilty. This she did by concentrating on minor inconsistencies in the police story (were the mica strips by the feet of the defendant or by the thighs etc.etc.). She completely ignored the fact that the police weren’t in fact the main witness, who was someone whose story was totally consistent – while the defendant’s story was not only inconsistent but continually changing (to the barely-concealed distress of his barrister). Moreover for the defendant not to be guilty would have required several unlikely coincidences at once to have happened. However this juror clearly had a personal problem about the Police, and no amount of argument was going to change her mind, so we had to deliver a majority verdict.]

There is also a line of argument common in these conspiracy theories which more or less goes like this : the “X” – where X represents whatever particular power conspiracy is supposed to be active – are a powerful conspiracy involved in Y (where Y is either a field where X have been active, or, even more commonly a related, or supposedly related field). Therefore the point has been proved. No, it hasn’t. The fact that a powerful conspiracy exists does not mean that it is all-powerful, or indeed that it has the motivation to be concerned in all aspects of Y, let alone fields related to Y. Thus the fact that the Jesuits had a powerful base in Education at a certain time does not mean that they meddled in Music – or indeed that all aspects of Education were corrupted by them. Connected with this is that so much of the “evidence” produced by these theorists is “circumstantial”, and any student of crime will tell you that circumstantial evidence is not enough by itself. The fact that no letters from A to B seem to survive from a particular period does not of itself mean that they must therefore have been suppressed by X, or that they never existed.

Another massive inconsistency in most conspiracy theories is that the conspiracies are seen to be remarkably effective in quite difficult things – and yet incapable of hiding their tracks in much more straightforward fields.

I think that Peter in his quiet gentle way is doing more than most to undermine the already ramshackle basis of the Newman – Taboga hypothesis.

Finally – a plea.

If you are wrong – as I would actually be willing to bet a very large amount of money that you are, if I were a betting man – then you and Taboga are guilty of what I regard as one of the greatest intellectual crimes, that of unjustly taking away the credit for their achievements from two “great men” (there – I’ve used that phrase in a casual way) – and impugning them and others, especially Mozart’s wife. If and when you meet your maker, I can only hope you have the grace to feel thoroughly ashamed of yourselves. I put it that way, because you strike me as being so determined to believe your Luchesi theory, that there is no way you could possibly be persuaded otherwise except through divine intervention.

If, on the other hand, you are right, then you are going about establishing your case in the wrong way. It may be arrogant of me to say so, but I have just passed my 60th birthday, and I have many years of experience as a professional and semi-professional in three fields, archaeology/history, biology, and theology, in which conspiracy and heretical theories are especially common. You will not get enough people to listen to you by constantly hammering away on your pet subject in a forum whose main purpose is not to discuss your theories. It was an especially bad idea for yourself and Droell to invade the “Back to Beethoven” thread. If you are right, then a massive historical injustice has been done to Luchesi, which needs putting right. You are not helping his cause in putting off potential converts by what will strike many as intellectual arrogance and discourtesy. In other words, fewer and shorter posts on this might be more effective.

I write this with some sorrow. You strike me as being a worthy person with many interesting things to say, and I will always be grateful for your part in my “conversion” to appreciation of Berlioz.

Regards and Best Wishes,

Frank

[Trying Peter’s indulgence, I hope he will allow me to quote a clear example of what I have been indicating.
Until quite recently, the idea that birds are descended from dinosaurs was a “heretical” theory. I don’t think it was a conspiracy theory as well, but there have been many cases in science where the scientific establishment has been accused of suppressing evidence for heretical theories. The reason the dinosaur-bird theory was heretical rested ultimately on one simple issue – clavicles (collar-bones). The ancestors of dinosaurs have clavicles, as have birds. Dinosaurs don’t. As biological knowledge stood at the time, such a pattern was practically fatal for any idea that birds were descended from dinosaurs, since it would have required a complex pattern to have been lost, and then re-evolved identically. Thus the fossil evidence of possible connections between dinosaurs and birds could only be interpreted as there being some parallel relationships (cousins rather than parents). The breakthrough came not in evolutionary theory but in a different but related field – genetics. The discovery of regulatory genes which can switch off, or on, whole segments of the genome, provided the necessary mechanism by which clavicles, or other organs, might be “lost” and yet re-evolved. Of course this does not absolutely prove that birds are descended from dinosaurs, although further fossil evidence strengthens the case. It is now orthodoxy that birds are dinosaurs. As one might expect, heretical theories are now appearing which say that they aren’t. For, contrary to the assertions of many conspiracy theorists, the modern tendency of emphasis on published “research” actually encourages researchers to come up with “new” theories]


[This message has been edited by Frank H (edited 02-23-2006).]

[This message has been edited by Frank H (edited 02-24-2006).]

[This message has been edited by Frank H (edited 02-24-2006).]

[robert newman]

Dear Frank,

I'm glad you like the Berlioz. David Cairns writes very well doesn't he ? It's a truly remarkable biography in two parts.

As for the rest, of course 'conservatives' will tell you there's nothing worthy of them answering. They will tell you it's all imagination. That it misleads students. That they and their textbooks must be right. That Mozart never lied and that Haydn's works are not vastly inflated by those of other composers. Fine. Others can see the sort of attitudes that are prevailing here and can see the quality of responses to straight questions. They can see for themselves how these 'experts' can talk but say nothing. The simple fact is they have no answers.

Both they and I have better things to do so, out of respect for this forum I think this thread has almost run its course.

Regards

Robert Newman

[HaydnFan]

Robert, in defense of Agnes Selby, your post are far to long to read, let alone quote. You can't expect anyone to pick through what you have written just to refute you. We already know that everything in your posts is unsubstantiated (apart from circumstancial evidence).

Just a question, maybe you can answer it Robert (not being critical of you here), are there any known works by Luchesi (fully and openly credited to him?) If so, can we not examine these works and see if there are any similarities with Mozart / Haydn before making any outrageous claims? If those works by Luchesi prove to be of less quality than the outputs of Mozart and Haydn, it is a good indication that Mr. Luchesi probably did not write music for these two composers.

[Rod]

Originally posted by robert newman:

Dear Frank,

I'm glad you like the Berlioz. David Cairns writes very well doesn't he ? It's a truly remarkable biography in two parts.

As for the rest, of course 'conservatives' will tell you there's nothing worthy of them answering. They will tell you it's all imagination. That it misleads students. That they and their textbooks must be right. That Mozart never lied and that Haydn's works are not vastly inflated by those of other composers. Fine. Others can see the sort of attitudes that are prevailing here and can see the quality of responses to straight questions. They can see for themselves how these 'experts' can talk but say nothing. The simple fact is they have no answers.

Both they and I have better things to do so, out of respect for this forum I think this thread has almost run its course.

Regards

Robert Newman

Steering this lost sheep of a forum back to it's master, whilst I am not particularly interested in any of your more 'radical' assertions re Mozart and Haydn (and Beethoven too, as in this case you provided no hard musical evidence and regardless you were just wrong I think) I do have sympathy with your generally anti-establishment stance. The 'musicologist' Solomon's writings on Beethoven are regarded as gospel by the musical establishment, but a great deal of what I have read of his on this subject i regard as at best amateurish and at worst complete rubbish. But who am I?

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[This message has been edited by Rod (edited 02-25-2006).]

[Frank H]

Originally posted by HaydnFan:

Just a question, maybe you can answer it Robert (not being critical of you here), are there any known works by Luchesi (fully and openly credited to him?) If so, can we not examine these works and see if there are any similarities with Mozart / Haydn before making any outrageous claims? If those works by Luchesi prove to be of less quality than the outputs of Mozart and Haydn, it is a good indication that Mr. Luchesi probably did not write music for these two composers.

HaydnFan, that might seem to be a very good suggestion. But I'm afraid it wouldn't have any effect on anyone determined to believe that Luchesi wrote Mozart's works.

If the Luchesi works prove to be anywhere near the equal of Haydn and Mozart, the Luchesi-philes will of course take that as the clincher for their theory.

If, on the other hand, they are of lower quality, it will be argued that Luchesi was allowed to take the credit for his poorer works, while his best stuff was filched by Mozart and Haydn, under the command of the dastardly, all-powerful Jesuit-controlled "establishment".

If you ask then - what possible evidence could ever disprove the Newman-Taboga hypothesis?, the answer is "None". Every bit of adverse evidence could always be explained as a result of the machinations of the aforementioned (almost superhumanly) powerful Jesuits.

I have had much experience of various "conspiracy" theories, and "heretical" theories in my time. And they nearly all share this characteristic - they are framed in such a way that they are IMPOSSIBLE TO DISPROVE. As such they belong not to the realm of science or history, but to metaphysics, alongside such phenomena as religious faith.

Metaphysics is in itself a perfectly respectable field. As a religious believer myself, I believe firmly that there are truths about the universe, and about ourselves, which are only accessible with a metaphysical dimension. In other words, I disagree with those who proclaim that only scientific truths have any validity.

What is however, as far as I can see, intellectually invalid, is to confuse the issue by claiming that what one believes metaphysically is "scientific". Of course I believe that my Christian faith is not anti-scientific - if I thought it was, I wouldn't be a Christian - but I do not believe that I can "prove" that my faith is true through science.

The fundamentally illogical thing about most conspiracy-type theorists is that, while claiming that their views are scholarly or scientific, they are actually holding them with a religious faith type of conviction, which is why no amount of "evidence" will change their minds. It would require the equivalent of a religious conversion to do so.

It is no coincidence that the very small proportion of heretical and conspiracy theories which have been proved to be true, and hence have overthrown establishments and orthodoxies (in science and history, that is), are precisely those which have not been ultimately reliant on metaphysical conviction, but are open to being disproved by evidence.

Of course they then become the new orthodoxy, the new establishment.

Frank

[This message has been edited by Frank H (edited 02-24-2006).]

[This message has been edited by Frank H (edited 02-24-2006).]

[Bobbie]

Originally posted by Frank H:

Originally posted by HaydnFan:

Just a question, maybe you can answer it Robert (not being critical of you here), are there any known works by Luchesi (fully and openly credited to him?) If so, can we not examine these works and see if there are any similarities with Mozart / Haydn before making any outrageous claims? If those works by Luchesi prove to be of less quality than the outputs of Mozart and Haydn, it is a good indication that Mr. Luchesi probably did not write music for these two composers.

HaydnFan, that might seem to be a very good suggestion. But I'm afraid it wouldn't have any effect on anyone determined to believe that Luchesi wrote Mozart's works.

If the Luchesi works prove to be anywhere near the equal of Haydn and Mozart, the Luchesi-philes will of course take that as the clincher for their theory.

If, on the other hand, they are of lower quality, it will be argued that Luchesi was allowed to take the credit for his poorer works, while his best stuff was filched by Mozart and Haydn, under the command of the dastardly, all-powerful Jesuit-controlled "establishment".

If you ask then - what possible evidence could ever disprove the Newman-Taboga hypothesis?, the answer is "None". Every bit of adverse evidence could always be explained as a result of the machinations of the aforementioned (almost superhumanly) powerful Jesuits.

I have had much experience of various "conspiracy" theories, and "heretical" theories in my time. And they nearly all share this characteristic - they are framed in such a way that they are IMPOSSIBLE TO DISPROVE. As such they belong not to the realm of science or history, but to metaphysics, alongside such phenomena as religious faith.

Metaphysics is in itself a perfectly respectable field. As a religious believer myself, I believe firmly that there are truths about the universe, and about ourselves, which are only accessible with a metaphysical dimension. In other words, I disagree with those who proclaim that only scientific truths have any validity.

What is however, as far as I can see, intellectually invalid, is to confuse the issue by claiming that what one believes metaphysically is "scientific". Of course I believe that my Christian faith is not anti-scientific - if I thought it was, I wouldn't be a Christian - but I do not believe that I can "prove" that my faith is true through science.

The fundamentally illogical thing about most conspiracy-type theorists is that, while claiming that their views are scholarly or scientific, they are actually holding them with a religious faith type of conviction, which is why no amount of "evidence" will change their minds. It would require the equivalent of a religious conversion to do so.

It is no coincidence that the very small proportion of heretical and conspiracy theories which have been proved to be true, and hence have overthrown establishments and orthodoxies (in science and history, that is), are precisely those which have not been ultimately reliant on metaphysical conviction, but are open to being disproved by evidence.

Of course they then become the new orthodoxy, the new establishment.

Frank

[This message has been edited by Frank H (edited 02-24-2006).]

[This message has been edited by Frank H (edited 02-24-2006).]

*


I do very much agree with Frank's comments. The tenacity with which some people hold conspiracy theories often on the flimsiest of evidence makes one believe sometimes that they must be lapsed believers or people searching for metaphysical certitude.
The classic one is the authorship theories surrounding the works of Shakespeare.
The known facts about the Bard are few , unremarkable but pretty well established. That has not stopped the anti- Stratfordians in coming up with all sorts of cookie theories about who really wrote the plays, with virtually no evidence to support them.
What I would say about Christian belief is that one has to be very careful about how one characterizes the philosophical nature of faith which will always be transfactual, otherwise it would not be faith. But on the otherhand is emminently consonant with reason and intelligence.
Science must proceed by way of experimentation, because it is concerned with an empirical process . Faith is no less grounded in human realities and indeed can produce measurabe changes and benefits in people who sincerely follow the truths that are enshrined in it. Science and Christianity are concerned with reason though Christianity is superior because it is concerned with mans ultimate fate and salvation and metaphysical dimension.
The 17th century scientific revolution did immense damage to the inherent unity of science and christianity which had always in the middle ages supported and reflected on another and indeed there were distinguished Catholic theologians who were also skilled scientists, ie, St.Albertus the Great.
I cannot resist a sideswipe at Darwinianism
and evolution theory which whatever its credentials may be in the animal world , and even this I would suggest purely on the scientific evidence has been vastly overrated, has virtually no significance or provable validity so far as man is concerned, and I could spend several hours talking about the deceptive misrepresentations that were made about this when I read archaeology at University.

Surely no one on this site is suggesting that Beethoven developed from the apes.

.

[Droell]

[quote]Originally posted by Frank H:

HaydnFan, that might seem to be a very good suggestion. But I'm afraid it wouldn't have any effect on anyone determined to believe that Luchesi wrote Mozart's works.

Luchesi really isn't the issue. Mozart is. So long as the claim of 626 works in a little less than 36 years is unchallenged, there is no problem. But once we start to look objectively at the man & the compositions, it is difficult to believe that anyone, under any conditions, could have written that number of works in that time period.

So if Mozart did not write them, then whoever did is going to be someone relatively unknown, and this by definition. No "conspiracy", just simple detective work. If Mozart did not write 626 pieces, then it is likely he had more than one source for them.

So we start at K1, a few years after 1756, and we go month by month, piece by piece, reconstructing Mozart's life, up to his death (or disappearace) in late 1791. That's not going to be easy, it will never be definitive, and it will always be controversial.

It might well be that a detailed investigation will prove Mozart to be who we always thought him to be, and if he turns out to be the man he really was, then it makes no difference how many times we rake over his life, nor from what ideological point of view. What is true remains true.

[Peter]

Originally posted by Droell:
Luchesi really isn't the issue. Mozart is. So long as the claim of 626 works in a little less than 36 years is unchallenged, there is no problem. But once we start to look objectively at the man & the compositions, it is difficult to believe that anyone, under any conditions, could have written that number of works in that time period.

What about Schubert and Mendelssohn - both incredibly prolific composers? Do you deny the possibility that they wrote such a large number of works in an equally short space of time? What about Beethoven who between 1787 and 1797 wrote well over 150 works in just 10 years? What you are not grasping is that these people were exceptional human beings with extraordinary gifts. I don't deny for a moment that works in the past have been wrongly attributed to Mozart and no doubt a few more will be discovered to be not by him, but this is a world away from the conspiracy suggested by Taboga.

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 02-25-2006).]

[Droell]

Originally posted by Peter:
What about Schubert and Mendelssohn - both incredibly prolific composers?

Schubert has around 1000 works to his credit - a great many of them songs dashed off in a single evening. And you know as well as I that his symphonies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6, while pleasing to the ear, do not show great complexity. With both Schubert & Mendelssohn (and Beethoven) we see a fairly straight-forward development in ability, from the simple to the increasingly complex.

Mozart & Mendelssohn are a useful comparison. Both were prodigies, both toured extensively, both died at about the same age. I don't have a complete list of either man's works in front of me, but of the truncated lists as found in the Concise Oxford Dictionary of Music (1980), I would guess that Mozart out-composes Mendelssohn about 3 to 1.

As an example, it seems that Mozart wrote around 20 operas, Mendelssohn only 2, with a third uncompleted. By contrast, Rossini wrote around 40, but then, Rossini wrote little else, and is known to have cannibalized his failures.

We could take Mozart, Mendelssohn & Schubert head to head with symphonies, concerti, chamber works, etc. & in every case, it's Mozart who comes out far, far ahead. Every now & then achievements like this need to be taken out for an airing. Regardless of the outcome, the results will be enriching.

[HaydnFan]

I just want to make a comment about what Robert Newman said about faith. Belief in a higher power does not equate to belief that Luchesi was the composer behind Mozart and Haydn. It is not even close to being the same thing.

When we discuss matter of music and composition, we are discussing scholarly, scientific topics which must be backed by evidence. You cannot simply say "I believe that Luchesi wrote music for Mozart and Haydn so therefore, you cannot argue with me because you cannot argue with faith"

I suggest that if you want to influence opinions on this matter, you must have evidence. Science is about the search for truth and requires support...what you BELIEVE to be true is irrelevent if it cannot be supported by fact.